California Surveyors Forums

Person owns "Lot 59 and the southerly 10 feet of Lot 58" by deed.
Same description goes back at least 80 years.
Person wanted the setback certified to an addition the previous owner put up without permits.
Surveyor is doing a ROS showing "lot line to be removed" (could say lot line removed, not sure) on the common line of 58 and 59.

Now the planner wants to "merge the two lots" before signing off because of the wording of the legal description. calls to two lot lines.

The zoning ordinance of the county the planner works for defines
Lot as A FUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF LAND THAT MAY BE LAWFULLY SOLD AS A SEPARATE PARCEL blah blah blah
I think it is obvious the the ten foot strip is not a lot.


Can this be done by the person granting themselves the property with a metes and bounds description?

Merger is governed by the Subdivision Map Act. There is a process for an agency-initiated merger. You are generally entitled to a hearing. You should chain out the lots and deeds for, as a general rule, if the original subdivider sold the lot and the adjacent portion, that could have been a creation point. Be careful and do your homework.

Good luck.

Here is some more.

Thanks very much for the effort Michael:
Waiting on title chain but the question is more..... If there has already had a lot line adjustment to add the ten foot strip, why would the strip need to be merged with the lot? Hasn't that already happened with the LLA?

I am back to the 1920's with the docs I have and the ten foot strip of Lot 58 has been conveyed with Lot 59 multiple times.

If the strip lot was created about 1940, there probably wasn't a local subdivision ordinance in place. The trip could be created by deed alone. The strip and Lot 59 were then conveyed together multiple times over the past 80 years. That does not mean they were merged.

Merger takes a positive act by the owner. Conveying like this is not a positive act.

Remember that a lawfully crated parcel does not mean that it is also a developable parcel. Your 10' strip is a perfect example of this.

I would request a lot merger as well.

Good stuff!

Thanks Ian
Still waiting on docs but am kind of hoping the new legal would stand in for the "positive act" effectively erasing the old lot line from the legal. It has been one piece of dirt for a long time.
The planner is intrigued as I pointed out that this particular merger ordinance requires the lots to be merged be two legal lots and by their definition the strip is not.

Attached are case and statute law that you may find pertinent. From the case law you may find the discussion on fractional lots applicable.

Good stuff, hopefully applicable
Thank you steffan